What is the actual evidence of the button/headphones “in the pocket(s)” anyway? Is it just the entry regarding these, and other items found(lighter and Skittles), in the SPD report description under the Property Narrative(“located and collected with in the victim’s pockets”)?

If that’s it then that’s really weak. Who entered that information into the report? The information on the evidence bag itself and considering CST Smith collected the stuff I would assume she wrote the description on the bag itself which she describes as “…in the victims pockets or in close proximity.” It almost seems like whoever entered that info into the SPD report description left off the “or in close proximity” for whatever reason.

The problem here was lumping all these items in one bag[and the poor description]. She[and Malphurs] should have retrieved one item at a time, described it and where it was found and bagged it.

Given the fact that “or in close proximity” is used here and there were no object markers for any of the items listed I would say a fair assumption is that “in close proximity” would mean on/attached to the body in some form.

But that still leaves us; who is to say from this which item(s) were “in the pockets” and which item(s) were “in close proximity“?

Lighter – This would seem odd and unlikely to be characterized as on/attached to the body in some form[or in close proximity].
Skittles – This would seem odd and unlikely to be characterized as on/attached to the body in some form[or in close proximity].
Button – This would NOT seem odd and NOT unlikely to be characterized as on/attached to the body in some form.
Headphones – This would NOT seem odd and NOT unlikely to be characterized as on/attached to the body in some form.

So given that then it is more likely:
Lighter – In pocket
Skittles – In pocket
Button – Attached to shirt
Headphones – Attached to clothing and partially on ground at same time

ME Malpurs and CST Smith both took photos but the public does not have access to those photos. The photos may or may not help in establishing the position of the button and headphones. W13’s photo that we saw of Trayvon’s body was too dark and grainy to make out any detail of any sort as it was a pdf photocopy. There are no other photo’s that I’m aware of.

The remaining speculation regarding the possibility of the button and headphones in the pockets theory is the time after Trayvon ran where he could have taken off these items to prepare himself to fight. Given his nature this would not seem unlikely. Regardless in the end that is merely speculation.

Some also mention no object marker for the headphones. The blanket was covering the body when CST Smith began. The body was later examined when ME Malphurs arrived and items, including the headphones under the blanket, were accounted for. Given the headphones were in part attached to the clothing they would not have been given an object marker as they were not wholly on the ground.

Lastly, I think, some regard the lack of public evidence regarding the phone as it relates to ownership and/or use at the critical time. That’s a fair thought to have as it is true the public does not have this direct evidence, yet. I’m sure it will though at some point if not at trial. So this is no matter really.

Final assessment – Button and Headphones NOT in pockets.

Update: August 4th 2013

I’m just adding the crimes scene photos, edited of course, that came out at trial which show in fact the headphones were just as I thought they would be, partly on ground and partly attached and the pin was still attached. Neither were collected from within the pockets.

The “so what” is that a lot of people theorized that the button and headphones were in his pocket. The button could have been significant because he was wearing it at 7 11 so why would he take it off? Possibly to prepare for a fight. And if the headphones were in the pocket then deedee was lying even more than she already has been. Now those theories can be eliminated

To Diwataman Raimondo goes to Martin, who is face down, followed very closely by Ayala. Raimondo finds no pulse and with Ayala rolls Martin over on to his back. Started CPR with Ayala doing chest compressions. Ayala was relieved by McCoy and they continued for 6 mins until SFD paramedics arrived. Raimondo felt “the large cold can in center pocket” and did NOT remove it. No mention of earphones. (from Offense Report by Raimondo 3/2/2102, State Attorney’s Office Invest Div-MEMO of Interview with Raimondo on 4/2/12) Ayala did NOT make any mention of can or earphones in his Offense Report 2/27/2012 and no mention of either but mentions photo pin on Martin in State Attorney’s Office Invest Div -MEMO of interview 4/2/12. McCoy in State Attorney’s Office invest Div -MEMO of Interview 4/2/12 says when SFD paramedics took over she went to Officer’s Smith car and had SFD check on Zimmerman and then gave instructions for Zimmerman to be taken to Station. No mention of can, earphones etc. In her Offense Report of 3/9/2012 she basically says the same thing and THEN goes on to describe what she observes at scene – “Single gunshot to his chest”, “package of Skittles in front pocket of sweatshirt”, “can of Arizona Iced Tea and a pair of earphones in close proximity to the body”, “scattered nearby small flashlight, cell phone and car keys with a small flashlight”. The thing though these observations were made about 12 days after. NOW the important thing is that McCoy COULD NOT have seen the Arizona Iced Tea (that wrong description) until AFTER Paramedic Livingston took it out of the “shirt” ! In FDLE Invest Report of 3/24/2012 when 4 of the SFD members who attended the scene were interviewed, it was Livingston who said that when she lifted Martin’s shirt, she discovered the can in the front pocket and she took it out and set it aside. Recall there was also the 7-Eleven bag found on the scene, but when a bag was needed by Ayala and Raimondo, one was brought to them. In a later interview Livingston could not recall if the bag was with the can.
There is then good grounds to SUSPECT that the earphones could very well have been in the pocket with the can. ESPECIALLY as there was almost an obsession by Rachel Jeantel to speak about Martin wearing the earphones and that she could hear when they fell off. WHY ?? Martin’s cell phone was found away from his body in a direct line coming from the top of the Tee. So how could she have heard the earphones fall if they were next to the body ? Taken as whole with the above, it seems the most likely scenario is that Rachel was told by Martin he taken them off (for some specific reason) and she was either told to say he had them on or on her own she was trying to cover this up.

I agree that the earphones were next to him as in the crime scene photos. BUT the photo was taken AFTER the events of Raimondo, Ayala, McCoy and Livingston as described above. As posted above, McCoy reported in her Offense Report of 3/9/2012 that she observed “can of Arizona Iced Tea and a pair of earphones in close proximity to the body”. BUT the Arizona Watermelon Drink (Iced Tea) can WAS TAKEN OUT OF CENTER POCKET by FF Livingston. The fact that the earphones are seen in the crime scene photos is NOT indicative of where they were BEFORE the photos were taken. In searching for info to verify what I considered the most likely scenario as postulated in above post, I saw at http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2013/01/19/why-the-lastest-defense-discovery-release-flash-back-to-diwataman-and-the-7-11-three-stooges/ this post from Sundance of Conserative Treehouse ” The discrepancies between the “in pocket” evidence vs. “out of pocket” evidence is easily reconciled. I have actually spoken to these people, not just read their reports. the pocket contents were removed when looking for ID. They were replaced. Various PD folks saw the actual body during this process, that’s why some saw them on the ground, others did not. The only things OUTSIDE of the pockets in the crime scene were the items marked and photographed with the exception of the Watermelon Juice can. That was photographed on top of the victim (tarp covering him) because it could not be placed easily back into his pockets. That’s why there are pictures of that item *on* the tarp at the scene. If it was not marked, photgraphed, and location identified, it was in his pockets. Period. That’s why it is not in dispute. ” My hypothesis came from my own use of earphones with my cell phone. NOBODY on the other side of the call can tell if I am using them or not. Which is what triggered me as to why Rachel Jeantel was making them an issue, because she could NOT know if they were being used or not UNLESS she was told.

I added the photos yesterday after your comment just to update the blog and what should be the end of this debate. The headphones were not merely next to him, they look like they are running down his shirt. The pin is right where it’s supposed to be. Now if one wants to think those items were taken out of the pocket and placed there in that way well then there’s not much I can say to that except it’s highly unlikely that would have happened.